June 11, 2007

I want to make clear that I have nothing against Katie Couric at all. She’s a very nice person and I have a lot of friends at CBS News. However, it was clear at the time and I think it has become even clearer that the mistake was to try to bring the ‘Today’ ethos to the evening news and to dumb it down, tart it up, in hopes of attracting a younger audience. And I just don't think that people at 6:30, or seven o’clock at night or even 5:30 in the central time zone , six o’clock when it’s seen, that that is what they want.... [T]he belief runs strong in the corporate towers of almost every news organization, print or over the airwaves these days, that if you go to celebrities, uh, it increases your audience.

I don't like the dumbing down of the news, but I see two important feminist issues:

1. Is Rather insinuating that having a female newscaster is part of the process of "tarting up" the news? I know he doesn't precisely make that connection, but, to me, it's just glaring that the word "tart" means prostitute.

2. Why on earth does it matter what time the news is on? If something is wrong for the evening news, why isn't it just as wrong for the morning news? I think what is unstated is that only women are watching those morning shows, so the standards are lower. We don't even call the evening news a "show," do we? It's not a show, it's a program!

If Rather is so concerned about seriousness, why doesn't he see the serious undertones of sexism in his remarks? And, hint to Dan Rather: Saying she's "a very nice person" is not going to immunize you from this suspicion.

118 comments:

1. No. The "dumbing down, tarting up" is part of making it appeal to younger viewers. Rather goes on to explain this involves focusing on celebrities, changing the set, changing the graphics and lighting, and getting a host from a lighter, morning news show.

2. Rather explains that people at home watching the news at that time don't want to see infotainment. I doubt it has anything to do with gender. It probably has to do with when people wake up and when people get home from work and need to catch up on hard news that occurred when they were at work.

Seems like if they were going to tart up and the news effectively they should go all out.

Naked News (you can find the website on your own) has been using that formula for years.

As I understand the FCC rules, there's no hard and fast rules against displaying female breasts in all their glory, just a tacit agreement to avoid doing so, especially during family viewing hours.

CBS could do a rebroadcast of their Evening News after Craig Ferguson in the wee hours of the evening, but replace all of Katie's on camera portion of the show with busty, lusty young ladies who strip through their on camera time.

It would be a ratings juggernaut, it would melt TiVos across the nation.

It might even out draw the regular broadcast of the news.

Couric is many things, but she's no tart, and the use of the phrase is ill advised on Rather's part.

And since we're talking about Dan Rather, can somebody over at HDNet hire away Barbara Walters camera operators? Seriously, they need to give him the full vaseline treatment cause looking at his face in full HD is very distracting.

(wrinkles and old faces aren't the problem, just his particular combination of rudiness, wrinkliness and puffiness are really hard to take in super clear and focused HD)

That's kind of rich of him to say they 'dumbed down the news' when his last broadcast was over 'false but accurate' news. Then again, maybe that's the same thing.

But as for tarting up the news, I think that was more a slam on Katie as opposed to a female anchor generally. I think Rather resented the 'cuteness' factor Couric represents as opposed to someone who he thinks would be taken more seriously.

Come on now! If you are Nature or National Geographic or PBS doing something serious about science, you have to find one of those 10 women in the country who can talk hard science, especially if she's photogenic. I can't imagine wanting to hire Einstein to present serious physics to the Amerikan people.

Dan Rather pretty much destroyed the CBS news on his own. Ratings were already declining when CBS brought Couric in. Even if she is objectively a good reporter, the move came off as a gimmick. To be fair, the replacements at the other network news haven't done so well either.

My theory is that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw all established themselves before cable news and the internet got big and retained viewership out of familiarity and personal loyalty. Once they left, that loyalty left with them.

In other words, there really isn't a damn thing CBS, NBC or ABC can do except chance upon an anchor who just happens to resonate with people.

Very keen point about the language! A "show" vs. a "program" -- good catch.

Then again the critics at Bloggingheads are wanting us to get more serious and substantive -- or at least to go into the issue du jour in more depth. That's refreshing to me, that they expect and demand that of women. If/when we do it again, we should demonstrate that there doesn't have to be a man in the conversation for it to be meaty.

Rather, like Gore and Carter, has become a bitter old SOB now that he has forced himself out of the limelight in a fashion that was not exactly classy.

Gore and Carter have become the same for the same reason. Gore's insistance in contesting the Florida resul, while not even carrying his home state, is the same as Rather's declaration that the papers may have been fake but the story they told was true. Gore is now attempting to edge his way back with the whole global warming thing. If the whole house of cards should collapse around him, as it would if the media would listen to the critics as much as the proponents of global warming as caused by man, his fall will look so much like the end of Citizen Kane it won't be funny.

Carter? His ineptitude in the face of the Iran-hostage affair and just about everything else while President, has made him just a bitter, bitter man.

The continued spread of cable means that people can do something other than watch the news when watching TV; they have dozens of options, not just maybe four. So the locked-in audience for evening news which existed thirty years ago is gone; TV news now has to compete against sitcom reruns and game shows.

Second, against a basket of alternatives (radio, the Internet, and cable TV news), broadcast TV has few and narrow advantages. It is behind on timeliness (24-hr radio, cable, Internet), depth (newspapers, internet), raw expense (radio), convenience (radio), or pretty much anything else. People primarily interested in news content, therefore, are not especially likely to bother to watch the evening news.

Here's the thing. The second set of problems are fundamental to the medium. The evening news producers cannot change them. They will always have a 4:00 story after Headline News; they will always be harder to consume in a car than radio; they will always have less depth than the written word. They're stuck. People who want news have no reason to go to the evening news; you can go back to Cronkite-era seriousness and serious issues, and the audience just won't be there, because on every dimension something else delivers the news better.

So, as the people with the habit of watching the evening news break it or die, the only audience available to TV news will be people interested in watching TV, not necessarily getting the news. But, if you go for them too hard, in the meantime you drive your remaining audience of old people with the evening news habit to rival networks . . .

Rather blather. Doesn’t much matter that the morning show “ethos” is about chit chat and the evening news program about Chet chat. Now that viewers realize most of the “real news” is packaged, politically programmed, unreliable and shallow, what’s the big deal about perky Katie? A lower voice and button-down gravitas is only staging and all news anchors egotistical twits, including Rather and Couric.

The Luckoldson gambit re: Iraq: if you are for the war, you are required to evidence your foreign policy or, preferably, your military credentials. If you are against the war, as Lucky is, no such evidencing is necessary.

The Luckoldson gambit re: CBS News: if you don't like Dan Rather, you must evidence your extensive resume, whatever that means. If you like Dan Rather, as Lucky is, no such evidencing is necessary.

The Luckoldson corollary: everyone on the right listens to right-wing talk radio.

May I just say to ignored persons that Fen's right about Dan the Man and that Brit doesn't have a swelled head, just a brainy bulge under his hatline? I fully admit that I watch Fox twice a month when I remember to catch its Sunday AM news "show." I'm a true knuckle-dragger, of course.

yeah...there's no doubt fen and the rest of the delusional wingnuts here have been right about everything from the iraqi fiasco, bush, gonzales, rummy, cheney, torture, renditions, habeus corpus, wiretapping, etc.

and that's probably why the republicans won that last round of elections...

Those are some less-than witty comebacks, Lucky. Do you have anything to add about the feminist interpretation of Dan Rather's comments? Are you able to engage in conversation at a substantive level? Or are you just a total moron who spouts fifth-grade-level drivel at people who vote for candidates who are different than your candidates?

As many as 1 of every 10 soldiers from the war on terror evacuated to the Army's biggest hospital in Europe was sent there for mental problems.

Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum. (That means about 1,000 soldiers were evacuated for mental problems.)

The hospital has treated 11,754 soldiers from the war on terror, with 9,651 from Iraq and the rest from Afghanistan, according to data released by the hospital.

and by the way, here's the response (no one has commented on)...from that other famous "left wing, sexist" zealot:

Scarborough: "No doubt about it. And, again, with CBS News and with Katie Couric, so many people are trying to kick Katie around. But I think that you're exactly right.

I think that the big problem here was a miscalculation that at beginning, you that somehow you're going to bring in 35-year-old viewers if you gave ‘em celebrity, if you gave ‘em, again, the 'Today’ show ethos, and that’s just not working.

And Rick Kaplan is over there now, and from all I understand, Rick is trying to bring a harder edge of news to it, but a lot of people watching you and then watching Bob Schieffer have already left. And it seems to me like it's a great challenge."

Lucky -- Were I you, I would watch less television and accuse people of listening to right-wing talk shows less. I would wager that few people here listen to a single talk radio show or watch nearly as much news television as you apparently do.

I would try to engage people substantively at a higher intellectual level. There are valid reasons to be against the war and to like Dan Rather and to be on teh left poltically and culturally. You don't make give them.

I really wouldn't be surprised if Lucky is Dan Rather. Let's consider the evidence:

1. He is defending Dan Rather, apparently on journalistic merits. No one but Dan Rather would do this.

2. His About Me statement declares: "Right now I'm carving a new G.W. dummy so I can shove my fist up its ass." This is on a par with someone who would report obviously fraudulent documents as legitimate in an attempt to undermine an election.

3. He has searched the world over for uses of the phrase "tart up." Weird.

4. He thinks that anyone on the right listens to goofy talk radio shows.

Where is the part that I have said that I am upset with Dan Rather? How does throwing out terms such as "blowjob" and "whore" affect how I feel about Dan Rather? What possible logical connection exists here?

Your arguments, such as they are, Lucky, are truly laughable. They evince real, nearly tangible stupidity.

But, yes, Lucky, ask me again if I have graduated high school. Or accuse the righties here of listening to certain talk radio shows. Show us again your brilliance.

The Luckoldson gambit re: Iraq: if you are for the war, you are required to evidence your foreign policy or, preferably, your military credentials. If you are against the war, as Lucky is, no such evidencing is necessary.

The Luckoldson gambit re: CBS News: if you don't like Dan Rather, you must evidence your extensive resume, whatever that means. If you like Dan Rather, as Lucky is, no such evidencing is necessary.

The Luckoldson corollary: everyone on the right listens to right-wing talk radio.

Your act is cheap and dumb, Lucky.

I urge everyone here to ignore this idiot.

It's good to see that at least some people have been able to recognize this fools schtick.

nacho-man, like i said: i'll put dan rather's life's work, accomplishments and reputation up against any of the yahoos here.

*oh, and think about picking up a dictionary.

'night all...say hello to rushie and sean.

You do understand that this proclamation is nearly a non-sequitor, don't you? Your aberrant and vehement dislike? or shall we call it hatred with those on the right, who just happen to be talk show hosts says what about you?

SevenMachos: The Luckoldson gambit re: Iraq: if you are for the war, you are required to evidence your foreign policy or, preferably, your military credentials. If you are against the war, as Lucky is, no such evidencing is necessary.

Even funnier, when you reverse his fallacy against him...

you're against the war, so why aren't you staging a hunger strike on the steps of Congress

...he only becomes more confused and hateful. He just doesn't get it.

My favorite Rather quote:

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story" - Sept 16th, seven days after the "story" had been broken by FR and LGF.

Mapes: "I'm perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there's proof that I haven't seen."

Ross: "But isn't it the other way around? Don't you have to prove they're authentic?"

Mapes: "Well, I think that's what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."

Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn't that really what journalists do?"

Mapes: "No, I don't think that's the standard."

Remember, Mapes was labelled "brilliant" by her peers. How did someone like her climb so high up the CBS ladder? And does anyone really believe the Memo Hoax was the first time CBS cheated us? There must be dozens of more "Mapes" lurking the halls of CBS. So I don't blame Couric so much - she's been lashed to the wheel of a sinking ship.

"1. Is Rather insinuating that having a female newscaster is part of the process of "tarting up" the news? I know he doesn't precisely make that connection, but, to me, it's just glaring that the word "tart" means prostitute."

The prostitute attribution to "tart" would be slang usage. The acerbic, bitting, caustic application makes more sense.

I sat on a plane next to Couric from NY to Atlanta bout 12 years ago. She had the aisle and I came late and had the window. I excused myself for disrupting her comfort and she kinda half stood and let me pass. Upon seating, I didn't say anything like "hey aren't you Katie Perky"? but simply commented that I hoped LGA wouldn't be backed up this morning to which she replied (I swear verbatim) "I hope you aren't going to talk ALL the way to Atlanta".

It would be easy to feel sorry for Couric and CBS, witnesses to their flagship being bested by fleeter vessels, knowing their glory days are long past. It must be scary to think they'd get better ratings (and lose nothing but pride) putting a game show in that slot.

But CBS and Rather tried to swing an election in the old manner of Hearst, but no longer owning the only press, failed. I certainly cannot forgive them for that.

And Rather is at his Gore-y best here. Certainly he knew "tart" would carry the whore connotation, much as he knew the documents were false. Plausible deniability didn't work then either.

I side with those who suggest DR is a bit embittered by his departure, and that colors his view of the current situation. I think, however, that the decline of CBS is simply coincidental with the general decline of network news. The days of uncle Walter are over and done--going the way of buggy whip manufacturers.

It looks to me like CBS made a marketing decision to go for a younger demographic and failed. The only question is when they pull the plug on the current format.

We should do the BBC newsreading format and get away from the anchor as rock star. These guys and gals are simply news readers; recall that Peter Jennings didn't even finish high school! They are simply personalitiesd who project gravitas on camera as they read the words that scroll down the teleprompter.

Certain news stories appeal to men moreso than women, and some appeal to women moreso than men. One problem Rather has spoken about in the past is how the news has gone from 'serious' news like politics and foreign relations to softer, human interest stories and paranoid Dateline NBC-style "XYZ can hurt YOUR FAMILY" stories that basically amount to calculated attempts to scare women. Combine that with the increased emphasis on lighting, attractive sets and moving the host around the studio, and you've got yourself an entertainment SHOW, instead of a news PROGRAM.

It seems to me that many of these egomaniacs: Dan Rather, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, etc., all go the Shakespeare route "Out damn spot" to no avail.

Trying to bring others down to their level in no way makes them less culpable or exonerates them from their failures. Lacking self-esteem all, they only shine the light of reason on their own petty shortcomings.

from hdhouse concerning Couric's "I hope you aren't going to talk ALL the way to Atlanta".I love that - I always pegged her for a phoney. CBS would have been smart to keep Bob Schiefer on until he retired.

I fly from and to Atlanta all of the time and hope I'd have the presence of mind to only ask a Couric seated next to me what she did for a living. Although, shouldn't we give her props for flying commercial, even if imperiously or brusquely?

"Tarting up the news" brought to my mind Lara Logan, the new and coincidently attactive chief foreign correspondant. I watched the Couric's first broadcast and at the top was a long feature with Logan going to a clandestine interview with the Taliban. The piece was obviously shot months earlier (plants were in bloom) and the camera focused more on Logan walking around than on what she saw. I was surprised she had no less than three costume changes. This isn't great news production and I would think it would piss feminists off.

On morning news, I agree standards shouldn't be different, but aren't they? My god, Couric's main job qualification for taking the morning job was perkiness. Ann Currie's becoming a star through her powers of empathy. Morning news execs seems to have decided (based on good research I presume) that "news" for women has nothing to do with Russia or the Middle East. The morning's Big Story at 7:15 has to do inevitably with celebrity, a grieving family or a plucky boyscout who wrestled a mountain lion for survival. Then we move on to two hours of breast-feeding and skin care tips.

I'm honestly curious, if demographics and ratings tell us this is what women prefer to news, what does the good feminist defend?

This woman prefers hard, honest-as-you-can-get news, domestic and international, and there are many like me. But where to get it? Even male-anchored evening news is getting fluffy, sentimentalized, insanely spun and tabloidish for both partisan and commercial marketing reasons. We could blame the emotive female condition/demographic for this, but “it’s all about feelings” is irresponsibly enshrined and institutionalized within the Democrat Party, replete with men and rad feminists. Centrist to conservative wimmin who may value their intuition, whimsy, empathy and good skin very much appreciate attempts at rationality and objectivity in the news and science. But we're living in a post-normal, Progressively-normed society in which fact, logic and analysis are squishy, mutable, touchy-feely commodities and we're left so unsatisfied, whether by Couric, Rather, Keller or TV Court.

"The prostitute attribution to "tart" would be slang usage. The acerbic, bitting, caustic application makes more sense."

*of course it makes more sense, rather has only been a journalist for about 56 years and knows exactly what the term means...but you don't really think these right wing nutcases care, do you?? (when i posted the dictionary definition of the term, they thought it strange that i would reference another viewpoint other than their own.)

these people are like jackels and once they pounce on something or someone, all logic and reason go out the window.

*oh, and always keep in mind that NONE of them listen to right wing talk radio or watch Fox News.

well, before the wingnuts pile on...adios (can i say that without fear of arrest?)...i've got a great tee time and have to meet up with friends who do actually read, listen to the radio...and...watch tv.

Thanks, Lucky, but LOL. I've tried the Brackish Broadcast Company and Public Brickcasting System news. When I'm overseas, listening to the BBC in hotel rooms makes me cry (emotional woman). At home, PBS and NPR are good sources for learning how the other half half-thinks. The Lehrer Newshour tries to be balanced, but the wording, framing and timing of questions is subtly agenda-driven. I don't bother much with Fox for the same reason, only it's not so subtle, just like the alphabet and other cable views-as-news outlets.

At least the Internet's news biases can be balanced by reading all over the spectrum for primary sources and convincingly reliable info and assessments. Which is NOT to say the truth always lies in the middle---

About CBS, seems to me that the idea was that the anchor has more than a news reading role. I don't know what the anchor does but there was news about Couric making this change or that change to the news.

But if she's a serious journalist (which she very well may be) she's overshadowed by the morning shows she was on.

They'd be better off hiring a pretty girl or boy with a great voice to *read* the news. People think that someone else writes the stories and makes the decisions anyway.

Amazing. Tart can refer to a pastry or a taste sensation or a prostitute or fixing up something to make it look good even if it isn't, yet Ann takes it as sexism immediately even though the primary and original meaning was a pie. Sorta like the guys taking the Rohrsach (sp) test and everything reminds them of sex.

THIS is CBSRosie O'Donnell: On the national front, Chimpy still won't admit to blowing up the twin towers, and he's hassling the Iranians who just want peace. Michael?

Michael Moore: Thanks, Rosie. Here in North Korea, cherubic children are flying kites and eating candy and everyone is smiling. And in Cuba, health care is free and wonderful, and everyone is in love, and the flowers pick themselves. Al?

As to Rather's blather: "Dumb down" and "tart up" can have fairly neutral connotations, but when Rather uses those expressions wrt to Couric the woman who usurped his throne (all in his mind since he fell off the jewel-encrusted gilded anchor’s seat with Mapes’ able assistance), there’s a sense of him criticizing that “dumb blonde/ sells-herself-broad who exhibits no dignity or journalistic integrity given the lightweight to sensational tripe on her ‘show’.”

Fine, but Hurricane Rather has never seemed particularly brilliant with his touched-up hair and his selling himself for fame, profit and party by affecting forced smile dignity and faked integrity and using man-in-the-street anecdotal wisdom, push polls, cherry-picked facts, and Kinko copier fiction to give America his best partisan to inflammatory news brokerage. He’s one to talk and denigrate. He’s no reputable journalist or gentleman.

Lucky: i suppose that must be the reason he's been a respected journalist for over 55 years...because of his "touched up hair"..."fame, profit and party"... "forced smile" ...and "faked dignity??"...(and to think the poor guy was the anchor for CBS news for ONLY 24 years...)

Lucky, the problem is that Dan Rather and CBS have been cheating their viewers for decades. They finally get caught red-handed and you beleive, like a spouse in denial, that its the one-and-only time.

Interesting choice of words for 2008. That is precisely what will happen if the appeasers, negotiators, apologizers, and bumper sticker wienies with $400 haircuts win the election in 2008.

The Dems are probably already working on a position paper that blames the Bush Administration for anything that happens in 2008. Meanwhile, the Islamic terrorists keep chipping away at western freedoms/values while CBS blithely continues it's downward spiral.

The answer was off topic but it was a reply to what Lucky was going on about.

It really amazes me, sometimes, to realize that some people simply insist on believing that "mad at Republicans" in 2006 translates to "happy with Democrats" in 2006. It just doesn't.

I mean, really, if Lucky was so confident about just how incredibly marginalized conservatives and those concerned about security are... why go on and on?

Or maybe it means something that Congress has such a low approval and the things that kept Republicans and independent voters from ensuring a continued Republican majority are the things that the Democrats seem to be pissing on so much.

The anti-war vote did not win the majority for the Democrats. Republicans acting like Democrats did. It was a punishment vote (or punishment "stay at home".)

And in the mean time Lucky is *still* calling for equal credentials before anyone is allowed to criticize Rather. Which test makes G.W.Bush darn near unassailable.

vet66 said... "BLOWN! - Interesting choice of words for 2008. That is precisely what will happen if the appeasers, negotiators, apologizers, and bumper sticker wienies with $400 haircuts win the election in 2008."

Ahh Vet...rather a $400 haircut than a two-bit brain I always say...and next time you are in combat (or picking invisible bugs out of the air) wear a helmet.

And to you Faux Noise lackeys with your endless and worthless attacks on network news..just remember that ALL of Faux Noise falls within the margin of error for viewers.....that means on any given night on any given program it is entirely possible NO ONE is watching...not likely but possible.

Now if you peabrains could start to discern news with a litmus other than "I think there is an agenda in here somewhere - let me find it" type of conspiracy theory garbage, ... well I wonder where you do get your "facts" such as they are.

From some of your posting on this thread, I'm kinda convinced Fen bends over and Pogo gleefully pulls it out of you know where.

and to "Synova said... calling for equal credentials before anyone is allowed to criticize Rather. Which test makes G.W.Bush darn near unassailable."

But Synova....who wants to compete with someone who is dead set on finishing last? I know you try and use big words but didn't you mean "the asshole" and not "unassailable"? Try it in your sentence. It makes more sense.

Words sure are toys to those who's life is full of little building blocks..."don't it"?

Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN’s daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC’s. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time…